Well as the title says, Starbases should be moveable similar to Shipyards.
With 1 tile per turn or something similar and the same anchoring/unanchoring mechanic like Shipyards with temporarily suspending whatever the starbase is doing.
Let me explain why this should be a thing:
1) Placement of Starbases is sometimes just a chore because of how one or more resources/relics are just 1-2 tiles out of range. While there are technology upgrades available later (namingly "Support Field Stabilization" and "Exploration Extension") which expand the range of the Starbase up to 4 tiles) for a total range of 9 tiles when maxed out, it doesn't come in handy at all because at this point you already placed 2 or more Starbases to make up for the limited range you had the first time around (especially when you are new to the game and didn't know about the later technology) so you leave it be as it is since later on the module doesn't make much of a sense anymore.
When moving the starbase would be a thing then one could place the Starbase near the more important resource/relic and later upgrade the starbase with the extended range module and move it to a little bit better spot to cover the resources you couldn't reach earlier, which eventually gives the modules much more sense at that point, so you don't have to think too much about the placement early on or wait until the tech becomes available. It would help to cut back on micromanagement costs since 1 Starbase covering everything is better than needing 2 or 3 starbases for doing the same. One would willingly invest more into existing starbases rather than just plopping new ones everywhere.
2) When the influence of an AI/other player reaches the Starbase and gets overrun by it then they consider it their territory and are more eager to attack the Starbase up to the point where one would have to excessively defend it for just a few unimportant resources which might not be worth the effort leading to an all out war. At some point you'll waste resources to defend it or just give up on it and look for a better spot.
When moving the starbase would be a thing then you could move the starbase elsewhere, rather than completely destroying it and thereby not waste on the time and resources you invested to build and upgrade that starbase. You could keep it and move it to a strategically better position, altough very slowly and thereby satisfy the otherwise neverending complaints of the AI. Even Deep Space 9 has done that several times throughout the series.
3) One might argue that moving Starbases is unfair to the AI/other players, but it is NOT:
The thing is, when moving would be a thing then hypothetically you might build a heavily defended Starbase and then move the Starbase into enemy territory and start spreading your influence there.
Seems unfair at first, BUT currently one could do basically the same by sending a truckload of Constructors into the enemy territory and build a new heavily defended base as well so currently nothing prevents you from doing so anyways. Balancingwise this nothing different than moving an already existing base there would be.
And even if it would be a balancing issue for some, then I suggest that building a Starbase in an other players/AI's territory should be impossible anyways, and so should be moving a Starbase, if that ever becomes a thing. One should only be able to retreat a Starbase from enemy territory to your own territory if their zone of influence overtook your Starbase.
TLDR; Make Starbases moveable so the extended range modules (namingly "Support Field Stabilization" and "Exploration Extension") make more sense for existing starbases to cover nearby resources that where out of range earlier on, as well as to strategically retreat a starbase from enemy territory into your own territory so one can avoid an unnecessary war without having to destroy all the work one has put into it.
IIRC: Came up in a couple of streams & Paul was against it. I totally agree with let them be movable, even if is 1 hex/turn. I can't count the number of times i decommissioned and had to rebuild a starbase because it's original location ended up being off by 1 or 2 hex. And come on, if a shipyard can move why not a starbase.
The real answer is put the starbase in the right place the first time or take the hit. Yes, that won't always be possible or easy or whatever. It isn't supposed to be. It is a simple reward/penalty system that raises a series of inconvenient decisions and challenges. For me, this is a very good thing. Seriously,it is not that there is no problem to fix here, as far as I see, it is taking out some of the challenge and interaction with the map. As far as I am concerned you shouldn't be able to move shipyards, but since they are randomly placed for you upon construction, they weren't going to get away with that.
That one space gap is a trap and you fell for it. So have I. Several times. Better luck next time.
However you want to justify the "realism" or "common sense" of the mechanism is more your problem than mine. I have no problem imagining any number of concepts to fit the bill. It's deviously clever game design and deserves a little imagination.
And you forgot to complain about the restriction of starbases being too close together. If you are talking about things being inconvenient and hard to justify, why not that point? It seems somewhat selective to me.
For me it is not a good thing.
A new player doesn't know that there is a tech to increase the range, so they will never place it right the first time around and find out about half way through the tech tree after 20 hours of play or something if they are taking it slower to get familiar with the game, after which you might have already 20-30 if not more stations around which easily could be only half of them if you'd have known.
An experienced player might know about it and do that right from the beginning. Well played, a one trick pony of a decision/challenge-system that punishes players the first time they pick up a game, after which they won't make the same mistake a second time, at least if they care, and after which the lacking feature becomes just cumbersome for longterm micromanagement.
As far as I read while lurking there are tons of threads out there complaining that the micromanagement of Space Stations is insane and by not making it possible to move them later on the game designers at least trippled the amount of space stations needed to cover some stuff because most people are NOT going to bother with tearing down 2-3 stations just to replace them with a single one with greater range later on because at this point the map is filled with crap and you lose track off stuff easily and just want the game to come to an ending. And the problem is regardless of the resource settings at the beginning of the map creation.
So you may find it good the way it is, for me this means next time I won't give a damn about space stations until I have the extended range tech researched. Or at least only build one if I need them to overcome a huge gap to next planet I can colonize and maybe tear the few ones I have created that way down later to replace them with a single one.
I am quite well experienced with 4x games already... and therefore I don't really need the resources placed on the map anyways to win against AI. While I appreciate them as they make things go a bit faster I can perfectly live without them and still win.
So the only thing this makes me want to do is... avoid using Starbases in GC3. In any other game this is not much of a concern because without a hexgrid system they work entirely different anyways. Other games mostly have starsystems with connections between them and a single starbase covers the entire system for the most part and it doesn't matter where you place it.
Actually I find the feature of moving shipyards and sponsoring them by various planets in range a quite interesting unique concept/feature that no other 4x game I know of has. So if it wouldn't be possible to do that the game wouldn't even stand out from the crowd at all because it is exactly those minor differences that render GC3 a unique game.
And if Starbases would be moveable and would have a similar Anchor/Unanchor as well as Sponsoring system it would do favorably for the game as well because it would offer something no other game in the genre has.
Would you agree that the Sponsoring/Sharing is a theme that makes a difference in combination with moving?
Well, as I wrote above. It's a one trick pony. Won't fall for that a second time in any other map I create.
Well nice straw man argument. "Your problem, not mine..."
And I never actually said anything about realism or of starbases being too close together. Realism and Closeness are an entirely different topic. If you find the restriction too lose and convenient then make your own thread about that.
Man erischild you may not have intended it but your sure sounding hostile, no need. No one is complaining here just throwing out an opinion / idea, certainly a topic that is a long way from a game breaker either way. Medu_Salem presented a idea/suggestion for a feature that he obviously put some thought into. Your counter points are not without merit and i am gona be still lovingthe game either way, just if i was given a vote it would to let them move.
Extended range fo starbases is not a requirement for playing the game. The starbases at basic range work just fine for me at my play level. It seems easy to go with that spacing and make the best of it. It occurs to me that learning about extended range is one of the advanced techniques a new user will learn eventually, not one that is needed on game one. I do not understand why experienced players like yourself make the assumptions they do about new players. Perhaps you can explain that to me.
As for your problem not mine, there was an earlier comment about it not making sense that starbases couldn't move but shipyards can. I consider narrative justification of game mechanics to be an individual subjective problem. If you don't have that problem, ignore the comment, please.
I do not mean to be hostile, but I am very confused about why extended range is a seemingly sensitive issue for you when it seems just fine to me. It sounded like "I don't like it; take it out.!" Protecting new players seems a straw man argument to me. Not wanting to place starbases until extended range is available sounds like a very individual decision and not one that will affect enough people to require any redesign. Do you have other points to offer? If not, we may have end up disagreeing.
I don't know the inner workings of the game but I assume any planetary bonuses are calculated when a starbase is placed/upgraded. Moving the starbase would require a lot of code iterations to calculate what was now under the umbrella. If they don't move there is no need to recalculate.
Totally agree, I usually do not bother with it, enough constructor spam without adding to it.
??? I wasn't making any assumptions about players new or old. I was simply agreeing with let them be movable and this is mainly due to my poor initial placement. Understand the strategic thinking aspect of the game and am OK with it as is. Just if i had my choice, i would let them move.
Your right, was trying to be a little tong in cheek, failed
Ok Cheers
Sorry, was not my intention
Cool, we understand one another. Now, the devs get to decide what will happen.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
